The only way this would really make sense for sami to do is if it simply wasn't possible for it to happen if planes maintenance cycles were kept up and they weren't ran to particularly old age -- something only within a few years of the absolute most the system will allow you to keep a plane (35 years or something I think).

Because it's simply not a good business model (for sami) if the successful airline that someone was playing for 3 months and, most importantly, paying for all that time, suddenly went bankrupt because the computer randomly decided it was their turn to have a crash. There has to be some method for players to keep it from happening to them.

Agree 100% Sigma. A crash should be a penalty for old age or lack of maintenance. Perhaps even poor staff morale (lazy LAMEs etc). It should not be used as a random event to random airlines. I can only imagine what a hull loss would do for your CI.

Bolier Dweller

I understand what yall are saying but, there are indecent like the Hudson river accident that resulted in bird strike. Then the Airtran flight that lost a engine cover a year back. While eahtier one of these resulted in a loss of a human life they can effect your CI and make your insurance go up. Maybe i should request crashes/plane mishaps.

This would still add a random penalty thta players would not be able to combat.

If mishaps and crashes were to be modelled, I agree it should be some sort of cumulative risk factor based on aircraft age, condition, and checks, staff morale and levels etc. Additional factors could also be extreme range flights, poor weather (time of year), night flights etc.

I would be happy if no single factor was required, so for example a new aircraft could have a mishap etc if staff morale and levles were poor and a check was missed. Then ther ewould be no obvious way to avoid consequences of poor management simply by having a young fleet or enough staff in isolation.

Maybe as an added protection no airline could have a crash until it had suffered at least two mishaps, so players get fair warning they are pushing their luck.

It will be included at some point (insurance is already modeled according to this). And it will be based on: - general level of flight safety globally (historical index) - area of the world (again historical / known data, flying in Africa is heaps more dangerous than in Europe for example these days) - level of your airline, staff, maintenance ..etc

..and occurence level should be in same levels as in real life; and it can happen to anyone (with given probabilities).

This seems like a fairly easy feature to implement considering other random events are coded (such Algerian rebels lol).

I think initially you could make the odds universal and tweak later. Something like 1 in 15 million for a fatal hull loss crash and 1 in 6 million for a non-fatal "event" which could be emergency landing, etc. A non-fatal event could just drop your CI 5 points and a fatal crash would be more complicated.

For a fatal crash, the airline's CI goes to 50% and then there is a ripple effect. Every airline flying aircraft from the same manufacturer gets hit by lets say 5% of their CI and every airline flying the specific model gets hit by 10%.

So if a B737 goes down, everyone flying the 737 loses 5% of their CI and everyone flying Boeing loses 10%. The worst case scenario would be for 100 CI airlines going to 50 (their aircraft crashed), 737 operators going to 90, and Boeing operators going to 95.

The odds of crashing are independent, so if the odds are 1 in 15 million flights crash and you fly 15 million flights in a game world, you aren't guaranteed a crash--you could have zero or you could end up with 2 or 3.

brique

I love the idea of crashes/mishaps/groundings/mayhem, especially if they happen to my competitors : but less so if they happen to me : which is the pretty usual mindset, I'd think : so, I do think anything too extreme in terms of the knock-on effects will produce more unhappiness than joy and rather a lot of very noisy threads ; I'll predict now they will contain phrases like 'charge-back', 'unfair', 'why does Alliance so-and-so never have any crashes', 'conspiracy' and 'I quit!'.

That said, I think it would be marvellous to dry-run such an 'improvement' in an 'extreme' version of the 'Challenge' worlds, along with the other hard-core suggestions for such a game-world.